Using individual‐based movement information to identify spatial conservation priorities for mobile species

The optimal design of reserve networks and fisheries closures depends on species occurrence information and knowledge of how anthropogenic impacts interact with the species concerned. However, challenges in surveying mobile and cryptic species over adequate spatial and temporal scales can mask the importance of particular habitats, leading to uncertainty about which areas to protect to optimize conservation efforts. We investigated how telemetry‐derived locations can help guide the scale and timing of fisheries closures with the aim of reducing threatened species bycatch. Forty juvenile speartooth sharks (Glyphis glyphis) were monitored over 22 months with implanted acoustic transmitters and an array of hydrophone receivers. Using the decision‐support tool Marxan, we formulated a permanent fisheries closure that prioritized areas used more frequently by tagged sharks and considered areas perceived as having high value to fisheries. To explore how the size of the permanent closure compared with an alternative set of time‐area closures (i.e., where different areas were closed to fishing at different times of year), we used a cluster analysis to group months that had similar arrangements of selected planning units (informed by shark movements during that month) into 2 time‐area closures. Sharks were consistent in their timing and direction of migratory movements, but the number of tagged sharks made a big difference in the placement of the permanent closure; 30 individuals were needed to capture behavioral heterogeneity. The dry‐season (May–January) and wet‐season (February–April) time‐area closures opened 20% and 25% more planning units to fishing, respectively, compared with the permanent closure with boundaries fixed in space and time. Our results show that telemetry has the potential to inform and improve spatial management of mobile species and that the temporal component of tracking data can be incorporated into prioritizations to reduce possible impacts of spatial closures on established fisheries.

[1]  W. Sauer,et al.  Comparing catch rate, conventional tagging, and acoustic telemetry data for understanding the migration patterns of coastal fishes , 2018, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

[2]  C. Franklin,et al.  Movement, distribution and marine reserve use by an endangered migratory giant , 2017 .

[3]  C. Franklin,et al.  Distribution, seasonal movements and habitat utilisation of an endangered shark, Glyphis glyphis, from northern Australia , 2017 .

[4]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Integrating research using animal‐borne telemetry with the needs of conservation management , 2017 .

[5]  Jacob van Etten,et al.  R package gdistance: distances and routes on geographical grids (version 1.1-4) , 2012 .

[6]  M. Bravington,et al.  Inferring contemporary and historical genetic connectivity from juveniles , 2017, Molecular ecology.

[7]  Robert L Pressey,et al.  Sympathy for the Devil: Detailing the Effects of Planning-Unit Size, Thematic Resolution of Reef Classes, and Socioeconomic Costs on Spatial Priorities for Marine Conservation , 2016, PloS one.

[8]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  The value of migration information for conservation prioritization of sea turtles in the Mediterranean , 2016 .

[9]  Gavin J. P. Naylor,et al.  Rediscovery of the Threatened River Sharks, Glyphis garricki and G. glyphis, in Papua New Guinea , 2015, PloS one.

[10]  J. Kocik,et al.  Aquatic animal telemetry: A panoramic window into the underwater world , 2015, Science.

[11]  Alistair J. Hobday,et al.  Dynamic Ocean Management: Identifying the Critical Ingredients of Dynamic Approaches to Ocean Resource Management , 2015 .

[12]  Amy F. Smoothey,et al.  Conservation challenges of sharks with continental scale migrations , 2015, Front. Mar. Sci..

[13]  M. Hindell,et al.  Important marine habitat off east Antarctica revealed by two decades of multi-species predator tracking , 2015 .

[14]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Using multivariate statistics to explore trade‐offs among spatial planning scenarios , 2014 .

[15]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Conserving mobile species , 2014 .

[16]  C. Bradshaw,et al.  Distribution, relative abundance and risks from fisheries to threatened Glyphis sharks and sawfishes in northern Australia , 2013 .

[17]  Navinder J. Singh,et al.  Conservation when nothing stands still: moving targets and biodiversity offsets , 2013 .

[18]  Ross G. Dwyer,et al.  V-Track: software for analysing and visualising animal movement from acoustic telemetry detections , 2012 .

[19]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Prioritising the protection of habitat utilised by southern cassowaries Casuarius casuarius johnsonii , 2012 .

[20]  Navinder J. Singh,et al.  Conserving a moving target: planning protection for a migratory species as its distribution changes , 2011 .

[21]  Bruce B. Collette,et al.  The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates , 2010, Science.

[22]  Dana K. Wingfield,et al.  Using Expert Opinion Surveys to Rank Threats to Endangered Species: A Case Study with Sea Turtles , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[23]  S. Gaines,et al.  Evolving science of marine reserves: New developments and emerging research frontiers , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Carissa J. Klein,et al.  Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine conservation planning , 2009 .

[25]  R. Pillans,et al.  Observations on the distribution, biology, short-term movements and habitat requirements of river sharks Glyphis spp. in northern Australia , 2009 .

[26]  N. Ban,et al.  Minimum data requirements for designing a set of marine protected areas, using commonly available abiotic and biotic datasets , 2009, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[27]  H. Possingham,et al.  Reducing bycatch in the South African pelagic longline fishery: the utility of different approaches to fisheries closures , 2008 .

[28]  S. Bograd,et al.  Persistent Leatherback Turtle Migrations Present Opportunities for Conservation , 2008, PLoS biology.

[29]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[30]  David J. Lohman,et al.  Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[31]  Kevin C. Weng,et al.  Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna , 2005, Nature.

[32]  Todd C. Wills,et al.  Divergent migration within lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) populations: Multiple distinct patterns exist across an unrestricted migration corridor , 2018, The Journal of animal ecology.

[33]  Navinder J. Singh,et al.  Linking Movement Ecology with Wildlife Management and Conservation , 2016, Front. Ecol. Evol..

[34]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritization , 2009 .